Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Famiglietti

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:30, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Famiglietti

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NACTOR; none of his roles are significant enough (I'll admit his role in Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines was memorable). Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 16:36, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:42, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:54, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:55, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 14:48, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep easily passes WP:NACTOR#1 Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. Lightburst (talk) 18:24, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not meant to be a mirror of IMDb. With minor actors IMDb often merges multiple actors into one listing, it is not a reliable source at all, and so if we have no other we should not have an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:44, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sources NEXIST beyond the IMdB. TV Guide, CT Post. Looks like the actor also penned a book The Divorce Party. Lightburst (talk) 14:38, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found coverage to prove he passes the general notability guideine at World News Network https://wn.com/mark_famiglietti and the Associated Press https://apnews.com/article/hollywood-los-angeles-california-archive-4ec61af330b2423f95d5ae9a1fe147b6 Dream Focus 18:56, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, significant roles [1] and good coverage among sources [2] [3]. Right cite (talk) 14:51, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If those sources constitute in-depth coverage I'll eat my hat. World News Network is a news aggregator, not a producer of content. The page presented aggregates an interview by the subject (interviews are primary sources that don't back up notability claims; it's also an interview by the producer of the film he was making at that time which doubles down on it not being independent) as well as the Wikipedia article about Famiglietti. It is offensive to the intelligence of anyone reading this discussion that Dream Focus would try to pass that off as an in-depth reliable source. TVGuide is a listing of credits, not in-depth coverage. The CTPost interview linked by Lightburst is the exact same text as the Associated Press link that Dream Focus posted, so it's one source, and it's an interview, which again, gives little credibility to a claim of notability. Finally, Lightburst knows very well that simply writing a book doesn't make one notable, so it amazes me that that's being held up as an indicator of notability. What a load of rubbish. And oh, quelle surprise - it was posted at WP:ARS. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:48, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing ping to Dream Focus since I screwed up the caps first time around. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:49, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Premeditated Chaos Thanks for the confrontational ping. We do not place additional hurdles for those who pass SNG. This one easily passes WP:NACTOR#1 - you have not said how he does not. He had a significant recurring role on - Aquarius (American TV series) 8 episodes (2015) and was in Mad Men TV series as Bernie Rosenberg (2007), he was in 28 episodes of Hang Time (TV series), 8 episodes of Young Americans (TV series). He even appeared in Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines (2003). It is to his credit that he does not beat his wife or get DUIs to make the news. He passes our SNG easily. Lightburst (talk) 21:58, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea why you would bring up DUIs or domestic violence as the only possible ways an actor might make the news or otherwise obtain coverage. Some actors obtain media coverage by virtue of the quality of their performances. Unfortunately Mr. Famiglietti does not appear to have been one of those actors. The Basic Criteria under WP:NBIO is this: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." No one at this AfD has provided any indication that Mr. Famiglietti has been the subject of such coverage. SNGs tell us who is likely to meet the basic criteria, but do not rubber-stamp a notability claim in the absence of reliable sources: "meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." It's obvious that in the absence of any in-depth reliable sources, there is no policy-based reason to retain this article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:07, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We will have to disagree. See WP:N A topic is presumed to merit an article if: it meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right; and It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy. I am not sure how we could read this any other way. He passes the subject-specific guideline. Unless you can show he does not? Lightburst (talk) 22:15, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NBIO, as I have already quoted from the section that describes the SNGs: "Meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." It's that simple. An SNG is not a guarantee of inclusion when sources do not exist. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:18, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

we had this discussion over the years. Especially in regard to Olympians - you may as well AfD about 89% of Olympian articles. I will let others weigh in as I have said enough. Lightburst (talk) 22:26, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also WP:ANYBIO is not a subject specific guideline. It is a backdoor to basic notability. Not even close to WP:N Lightburst (talk) 22:29, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I performed some clean up and added relevant references to the article. I trimmed out unreferenced material as well. Lightburst (talk) 00:49, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It should be clarified that none of the references added have any significant content about Famiglietti. The best of them is a two-sentence paragraph; the others are name-drops. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:26, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:46, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He had starring roles in Hollywood films, so I think that qualifies him as notable. Note that this article was entirely unsourced when it was nominated for deletion, but it does have several sources now.Funtoedit1212 (talk) 01:15, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only source that is currently in the article that supports WP:GNG is Connecticut Post. The remaining (Los Angeles Times, Us Weekly and Entertainment Weekly are passing mentions of the subject and fail "significant coverage" required. His book and its subsequent play do not seem to have helped to garner any press. Five pages of my Google search resulted in nothing of significance. Searching Google News, I found a few more passing mentions related to Spy Intervention with https://deadline.com/2016/10/comedy-the-divorce-party-gets-production-start-date-lead-cast-1201844891/ diving in a bit deeper, but not enough to count as significant coverage. Maybe WP:TOOSOON. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:10, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The AP story, https://apnews.com/article/hollywood-los-angeles-california-archive-4ec61af330b2423f95d5ae9a1fe147b6, is identical to the one in Connecticut Post. When I get to the writer's credentials, "Justin Papp is a staff writer. justin.papp@scni.com" and scni.com is apparently dead. It was "Southern Connecticut Newspapers, Inc.", but it doesn't seem to be active. Perhaps another domain is associated with it. Makes even that one ref a bit more suspicious. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:35, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Closer note: The above editor has followed me here after warring with me and harassing me on the Rick Beato article that I have been improving. Participated in no AfDs for a month but came to ~~vote~~ !vote obstinately on this article that I worked on. Again making the same tedious edits 1 From the editor’s AfD stats it is clear that they followed me 2 Lightburst (talk) 02:14, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I was following the editor because of the problems I saw at Rick Beato that have most recently included MOS:PUNCT, Wikipedia's copyright policy as shown here, and WP:OWN. With such a complete lack of understanding of MOS:CAPS, MOS:IMAGESIZE (as shown when I was reverted on this article), I won't engage further, but clearly we have a problem editor. Yes, my block log is longer, but so is my edit count. In the end, however, whether or not I followed the editor here the issue is whether or not Mark Famiglietti meets WP:N, and as I have show, the subject does not appear to. Oh, and we do not WP:VOTE, another error that Lightburst continues to make. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:13, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, and I missed WP:OVERLINK and incorrect date formats! Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:33, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was following the editor.. Yeah you are. If you think Lighburst is a "problem editor" open a case at ANI. They are feeling harassed by you. See WP:HOUND: following the editor, calling them a "problem editor", continuing to push a content dispute with a litany of WP: links in an unrelated AfD page, voting angular to them right after they voted. -- GreenC 14:12, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:Walter Görlitz Seriously, you opined on "incorrect date formats!" [exclamation in original]. And admitted to WP:Wikistalking. What is your malfunction? Whatever happened to WP:AGF WTH?

FWIW, I made all of the dates uniform using D/M/Y format. But how consequential is that? Ad hominem fallacy? And what does it have to do with the AFD?

Moreover, there was nothing preventing you from making that correction, instead of carping about it. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:35, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I went to the project and requested help and Lightburst followed me there. This article is within the scope of the musicians project, so when I see the editor messing up, and not admitting to their own stalking, I have no problems being forthright. What's preventing me from correcting things: Lightburst reverts without question any changes I've made, whether correct or not. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:29, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Lightburst, based on the large number of supporting roles in hit TV shows and major films. Bearian (talk) 15:24, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lightburst. VocalIndia (talk) 17:59, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.